McAdam v. Leak’s Empirical Analysis
1922
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1975
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Shoop v. Burnside · Thimes v. Stumpff · Hampe v. Sage · Williams v. Wessels · Tracy v. Gunn
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The statement in the plaintiff’s letter that he would draw a deed and send it to the defendant for her signature was a mere offer to perform the clerical work of preparing a deed for execution. It did not amount‘to a reservation of a right to require a particular form of conveyance. Nothing having been said to the contrary, the parties are deemed to have contemplated the execution of a deed in the usual form. “It is contended that the minds of the parties did not meet upon all the essential matters of the contract because nothing had been said as to when and where the purchase price was to be paid. In that situation the defendant could have insisted upon receiving it at her residence in exchange for the deed as soon as a reasonable time had elapsed for an examination of the abstract. She did not break off the deal, however, because of any question of time or place of payment, or of the abstract or deed, but upon the ground that the price was too low.” (p. 706.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pope v. Pine““The defendant also urges that under the allegations of the petition she had no authority to bind her husband, who owned a half interest in the land and was not a party to the action. This would prevent a decree for specific performance unless the plaintiff were willing to accept a deed conveying the defendant’s interest alone, with an abatement in the price. (Williams v. Wessels, 94 Kan. 71 , 145 Pac. 856 .)” (p. 707.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““You may send your abstract out to Syracuse and have it brought down to date and forward it to me and I will examine it and if it is satisfactory will draw a deed and send to you for your signature.” (p. 706.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pope v. Pine
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.